B-

C+

C

C-

D

F

Good movie. It went by quickly, too. That said I really dislike watching a film in 3D and I will avoid it whenever possible. It really bothers my eyes.

If there are technical flaws to this film (and I'm sure there are) I didn't spot them. It really conveyed that sense of how messed up you could be in space with no gravity to anchor you. There were moments that really creeped me out. If there was a strain of credibility it was how anything that could go wrong pretty much did but, of course, thats dramatic licence.

The "Clooney lets go" scene still bugs me because it just doesn't make any physical sense. Not only does Clooney letting go cause him to float away but it causes her to float BACK towards ISS! The scene makes no sense. Once they were stopped they were STOPPED!

Click to expand...

I get the impression the director was simply slowing the moment down to a crawl for dramatic effect, and that Clooney was actually meant to be pulling away a lot faster than it appeared.

Unfortunately they slowed things down SO much that it effectively looked like his momentum had stopped completely.

Which, yeah, just looked very weird.

Click to expand...

I'm going to say that the structure was spinning just a bit, so that centrifugal/centripetal forces were at work--or maybe a small oxygen leak venting him back...

I went ot see this this afternoon and came away with two distinct impressions. The first is that this is a good movie. It plays as contemporary drama (much like Apollo 13), but technically it could be seen as science fiction since it's proposing a "what if" scenario for the characters to deal with. Sandra Bullock rocks (and looks great) as astronaut specialist Ryan Stone. But the real major component of this film is how outer space, even in simple Earth orbit, is a hellishly dangerous place and completely alien to the rest of us who've never known anything but existence rooted to the ground. I'm sure there must be technical and scientific liberties taken in this film (there always are), but I can't really spot them. And it doesn't matter because it wouldn't change a thing in terms of the story being told and how it's told. It's been glimpsed before, but this film nails the idea that outer space and space travel bears little resemblance to how it's usually depicted in science fiction and that's including the better efforts. I came away from this giving it an "A" rating. Now that said, the film wasn't a total win, but what bothered me had nothing to do with the film itself. This afternnon reaffirmed that I really dislike watching a film in 3D because it really bothers my eyes. In addition the 3D picture doesn't actually look that good to me and often enough the colours all look muted to some extent and the overall picture seems a bit darker than usual as if someone turned the brightness down a bit too much. As such I will avoid seeing films in 3D whenever possible because it taints the experience for me. I give the film an "A" and the 3D viewing experience a "C."

Overall I loved this movie even if a few plot points were a bit forced.

Anyone else see this in Dbox? If there was ever a movie that screamed "Dbox", this was it. The sensation of weightlessness along with all the explode-y parts was fantastic, subtle where it needed to be and pretty intense in other spots.

There was a 3D Dbox showing that didn't have good show times for us, but I'm fairly certain I would've lost my dinner if I had attended a showing with both gimmicks in place. I might try to catch a 3D showing since it looked to me like the 3D would be fantastic here.

Seeing things being wrecked and blown apart in total silence was creepy as hell and really added to the sense of danger. You wouldn't even have that perverse sensory feedback of hearing stuff coming at you like when you're in the midst of a catastrophe on Earth.

The one technical aspect that strikes me as odd now is being pretty certain satelittes are in much higher orbits than the ISS or space shuttle missions. If that's so then that flying debris should never have posed a real threat to the astronauts. But, of course, this is overly dramatized storytelling so creative licence is invoked.

The one technical aspect that strikes me as odd now is being pretty certain satelittes are in much higher orbits than the ISS or space shuttle missions. If that's so then that flying debris should never have posed a real threat to the astronauts. But, of course, this is overly dramatized storytelling so creative licence is invoked.

Click to expand...

They greatly simplified the locations of the satellites/space stations for dramatic effect (from one of Cuaron's interviews, an earlier version of the script accounted for some of this, but they found that it was too much exposition and was just weighing the story down).

I'm happy to say I don't think Cuaron is interested in HFR; it also goes against his preference to always originate on film (he only shot this digitally because he thought there would be a grain issue if he originated on film and converted. The only stuff shot on film is at the end of the movie, and it WAS done on 65mm stock.) While HFR was originally a film-based process called Showscan by Doug Trumbull, I don't think anybody has used that for anything other than some short films in the 80s and some special venue stuff.

Back on GRAVITY: the issue of data management for HFR would have made this thing implode. As much as he and his DP wanted to finish at 4K, they just couldn't due to time and cost constraints. HFR would have effectively been as big or bigger a time and money hit than finishing at 4K.

Until Kowalski mentioned the possibility of satellite removal (and after the movie, when I remembered until 2007 there were still dumbasses testing ASATs on actual orbital targets, which is like testing a nuke over a city), I thought Russia was at war with PRChina (or maybe us), which gave my first viewing a real Abyss-like quality that I appreciated.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I wondered that too, if the Russian issue wasn't a secret satellite gone wrong, and if Ryan would finally find a safe pod to get back to Earth on... only to see all major North American cities light up with nukes. Stealth Terminator interquel alert!

A fantastic and utterly unique movie-going experience, though all the crying over her dead daughter was a bit awkward to sit through right next to my rather more sensitive mother. And it was fun to see her duck in her seat during one of the debris collisions, both sequences of which were maybe the most terrifying things I've ever seen in a theater.

I was expecting Clooney to make one final contribution via radio, so I admit I fell for his "return". The whole melodrama aspect was a tad overcooked, and I could've done without the "no one ever taught me how to pray" bit (uh... I've never tried it myself, but I don't think there's anything to it, really), but I still have to go with an A- overall. It'll definitely stick with me far longer than STID already has.

Stars as powerful as Ms. Bullock and Mr. Clooney deserve much of the blame for these kinds of shameful representations in a tentpole blockbuster produced by the studio with the most masculine-sounding name, Warner Brothers. But we must not neglect the film’s author, Alfonso Cuaron. GRAVITY simply marks yet another deceptively misogynistic entry in his filmography. Cuaron’s films are bursting with themes appropriated from the filmmaker’s inherently paternalistic and Catholic Mexican background.... Also consider the wanton, teen-boys-in-puberty wand-wielding in HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN or that a male is the deliverer of humanity’s future in the aptly titled CHILDREN OF MEN. And let’s only mention in passing his grotesque, mannered and cloying adaptations of A LITTLE PRINCESS and GREAT EXPECTATIONS.

However, Mr. Cuaron’s greatest cinematic crime against women is surely GRAVITY. It’s a revenge film, of sorts. He made the film coming off of a bitter divorce, and the final product is dependent on juxtaposing powerful male symbols against the ineffectual Dr. Stone. It’s littered with reminders of male dominance over the feminine, from the phallic spacecraft and equipment to its ham-fisted emphasis on masculine religious symbols such as St. Christopher and Buddha. Mr. Cuaron stoops to even include Marvin the Martian–with his absurdly large gun–as a holy talisman of sorts. You can practically hear Mr. Cuaron cackle as it becomes obvious there is no escape for Dr. Stone.

the most feminist event in Hollywood history came when John Landis decapitated Vic Morrow — thus accidentally emasculating the white male stereotype he was clumsily lampooning and exploiting in the tawdry TWILIGHT ZONE: THE MOVIE.

Click to expand...

Or her insane conclusion:

GRAVITY is often compared with 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but at least Stanley Kubrick’s film, with its cavalcade of jutting phallic structures and nearly all-male cast, is upfront and honest about its masculino-fascist viewpoint. When the astronaut Dave returns to Earth, it’s as a massive superman in his infancy. The implications are clear: The masculine forces of the universe have ordained a male to govern over Earth and the immediate cosmos. In Mr. Cuaron’s film, our heroine is harried into accepting domesticity.

Click to expand...

"Masculino-fascist?" I have no idea if this article was intended as parody or not, but it's hard for me to read it any other way.

I always tend to think of "masculino-fascist" type of concepts as what you get when you have a right-winger embarrassed by their cherished reactionary illusions trying to sound leftish by trying to copy Marxism without ever, ever bothering to find out anything about it.

Then, when I see people trying to turn an internet post into a bloody shirt they wave around to inspire rage, I get queasy.

Material conditions determine ideas, not the other way around. There will never be any way to liberate humanity by persuading enough people to think differently. By now, every effort to do so betrays a commitment to backwards notions about souls and sin, however they may try to disguise them.

I always tend to think of "masculino-fascist" type of concepts as what you get when you have a right-winger embarrassed by their cherished reactionary illusions trying to sound leftish by trying to copy Marxism without ever, ever bothering to find out anything about it.

Then, when I see people trying to turn an internet post into a bloody shirt they wave around to inspire rage, I get queasy.

Material conditions determine ideas, not the other way around. There will never be any way to liberate humanity by persuading enough people to think differently. By now, every effort to do so betrays a commitment to backwards notions about souls and sin, however they may try to disguise them.

Click to expand...

My feeling is that you're using a bulldozer to destroy an anthill. I could be wrong, but I think this feminist article is a parody. I'm almost certain.

I enjoyed the film, but it was held back by a reliance on the standard hollywood formula and tropes. The first 45 minutes or so were fantastic, but once Sandra Bullock reached the ISS the film fell apart for me. Sandra Bullock's character just bounces from one disaster to another while the experienced astronaut, the guy who is one day away from retirement, dies saving her.

Sandra Bullock hitches a ride with Matt. He dies.

She boards the ISS. It catches fire within a minute.

She boards the Soyuz escape pod. It gets tangled in the ISS.

She frees herself from the ISS. The ISS blows up.

She tries to use the Soyuz' thrusters to reach the Tiangong. It's out of fuel.

She reaches the Tiangong. It blows up within a minute.

She reaches Earth in the escape pod. Nearly drowns opening the hatch.

She swims to the surface. Gets attacked by a shark.

She reaches land. Natives capture her and try to sacrifice her to their volcano god.

She escapes from the tribe and is rescued by a helicopter. Helicopter crashes into the ruins of Jurassic Park.

I might be a little fuzzy on the details near the end there, but I'm pretty sure I got the gist of it. I remember joking to myself that she'd reach the Tiangong only to destroy it. Hey, guess what happened? She's a god damn walking (floating) disaster.

I really enjoyed the film, but it got silly at the end. A+ for the first half. C- for the second half. Overall, I went with a B+.

It's weird. I've seen this film 7 times now and while I know the story is basically generic to the point where it might as well not exist, as a film it's one of the best filmmaking experiences I've had the pleasure to enjoy. Seeing it on a giant screen in 3D is just a joy, and I think it's probably Cauron's best work to date.